History of paying the Governor General

A propos of protests in the media about a pension to be paid to the outgoing governor general:   

When I was explaining to my constituents the terms of Confederation and the various reasons that had brought it about, my people accepted my explanations in a very excellent spirit and appeared perfectly disposed to give me a free hand in all points but one, and that point on which they struck was the Governor General’s salary. The proposal to raise the salary of the Governor General of Canada from £7000 to £10,000 met with the warmest disapprobation and I was heckled remorselessly for supporting it…. I can assure you it told very seriously on the result of the elections. I refused point blank to pledge myself to vote for a reduction of His Excellency’s salary, and it cost me hundreds of votes and very nearly lost my election.

That's Richard Cartwright, confederation-era politician, recalling in his memoirs the one element of confederation his constituents just could not stomach. 

I don't begrudge the money. I do regret that we still haven't make the GG our head of state, with appropriate standing and respect, and started getting what we are entitled to.

February 2:  Helen Webberley comments from Auz:

I don’t begrudge the money either.

The Governor General is the head of state, there to represent the country overseas and to receive overseas dignitaries who arrive in our country; dissolving Parliament and issuing writs for Federal elections; setting out the government's programme by reading the 
opening speech etc. He or she is not a politician and cannot replace or overrule duly elected parliamentarians.

Be very very grateful Canada has a proper head of state, not a politically powerful President like the USA had, or Belarus, Poland, Russia, Chad, Congo, Uganda and half the other countries on earth.

Of course this is all irrelevant to the debate about keeping the Queen as head of state, but that is a discussion for another time.

Canada's history of welcoming refugees

Given Canada's history of welcoming refugees, perhaps it is no wonder Harry and Meghan are said to be thinking of this country as their refuge from the royal family.

But we should remember that what attracts people to Canada is our commitment to tolerance and equality.  We're not so big on privilege and entitlement.  First thing we need to do is nix the dumb ideas starting to appear about making that poor boy governor general or commander in chief or leader of the Conservative Party or something. He's not even a Canadian citizen

If Harry really wants acceptance in Canada (he hasn't said so), maybe he should start by asking for membership in Citizens for a Canadian Republic  or Republic Now

Book Notes: Johnson's Battle Royal

"King of Canada. Mummy, must I?"

David Johnson, the author of Battle Royal, a new study of monarchical versus republican ideas in Canada, describes himself as a "pragmatic monarchist," but he writes as a sentimental one too. His book is full of lush descriptions of the pageantry of royal weddings, coronations, and tours. At one point he uses the odious Edward VIII as an example of the "modern, philanthropic monarchy" (he does later acknowledge the Nazi associations). He lavishes chapters on the intricacies of "crown privilege," because the subject can be made to inflate the power and importance of the royalty -- though really crown privilege is just executive privilege, and the issues are essentially the same in republics and monarchies. He argues monarchy is better because the Queen is a bigger celebrity than any governor general -- though on that metric Canadians ought to prefer foreign Olympians over our own, too. He consistently takes monarchical positions seriously while often finding republicans "quick to pounce" with quibbles and objections.

Though his thumb seems to be on the scale at times, Johnson does strive for balance, faithfully following a monarchist interpretation with (a slightly less fervent) analysis of republican ones. The most valuable chapter of the book may be the ninth, "Quests and Quagmires: Republicanism meets Constitutionalism." His argument here is that a Canadian republic is "impossible." The Canadian constitution sets a high threshold for changes to the monarchy: unanimous consent of the Canadian government and all of the provinces. Professor Johnson dismisses suggestions for getting around this requirement, and concludes that since unanimous consent has never been secured for any constitutional amendment since the establishment of the amending formula in 1982, the monarchy is immune to change. George must follow William who will follow Charles who will follow Elizabeth, and so on forever, he concludes. Case closed.

I think Johnson is right about the unanimity rule. It is a high threshold, and it ought to be. Establishing a Canadian republic with a Canadian head of state is an important change, It needs to be treated with appropriate seriousness and the proper constitutional procedures.

But Johnson is wrong, I think, to argue that difficult means impossible. Ending the monarchy in Canada by formal constitutional change is one of those things that will only be impossible until it becomes inevitable. Johnson acknowledges that polling in Canada generally runs republican, and has for quite a while. As that sense becomes consensus, there may simultaneously be an erosion of the belief that popular, specific changes to the constitution can always legitimately be held hostage by premiers with local concerns about fish or employment services.

Johnson's chapter shows how little attention Canadian thinkers and scholars have yet paid to the details and issues of the republican transition. Searching for republican "positions" on constitutional matters, Johnson is reduced to quoting the press releases of Citizens for a Canadian Republic. Now I admire the efforts of CCR and have at times been consulted by them. But CCR is essentially a handful of well-meaning citizens, hardly equipped to be presented as the authoritative research institute on the constitutional aspects of republicanism. 

What Johnson presents most clearly in Battle Royal is how much work remains to be done on the ways and means of creating a situation in which the Canadian state has a Canadian head of state and no longer needs to borrow a foreign one. The republican option requires research papers, conferences, publications, and discussions, to flesh out the widespread Canadian doubt about a foreign and monarchical head of state with realistic, pragmatic, practical paths to change. Canadian monarchists have clearly been better organized, better funded, and more calculating in these matters.

If that work were being done, then we might have something resembling a battle royal. The evidence from Johnson's study is that it has hardly started yet.

From the Literary Review of Canada, some previous thought in this area.

History of head of state elections in South Africa

President Ramaphosa

I was delighted to observe the richly deserved removal from office of South African President Jacob Zuma, but a little puzzled by how the presidency seemed to be completely in the gift of the African National Congress party, as if he were merely a party executive and not the President of the nation and people of South Africa.

South Africa has a particular variant of parliamentary democracy, in which the national legislature elects a president from among its own members.  The president thereupon must resign from the legislature and becomes an executive president, with both real and ceremonial powers. It's the election of president directly by the legislature that gives the majority party the freedom to name and remove presidents without much regard to opposition parties or the will of the population.  The apartheid struggle, and the ANC's large majorities since, have conditioned it to blur party, state, and nation, in this and other matters.

I take note mostly because when Canada transitions to a republic, a key choice to be made will be how to select a governor general, and what powers that office will hold. There are lots of cautionary examples around the world. 

History of serious monarchists

Last month a National Post columnist opined about the "pathology" of Canadian republicanism.  You know, don't even talk about it, no daylight on magic, something like that.

The opening paragraph complains that we should not even have polls that ask Canadians their opinion on monarchy or if they like the idea of a Canadian head of state.

On Boxing Day, polling giant Ipsos released a year-end poll for Global News surveying Canadian opinion about the monarchy. If you’re a serious monarchist you are of two minds about this sort of thing. You recognize the necessity of occasionally taking the pulse of the institution, just as a human of great age will have their vital signs measured from time to time. You also know that to present the Canadian monarchy to the public as a free choice, a fashion we can discard when it suits us, has the effect of encouraging republican fantasies. (emphasis added)

 Actually the Post columnist has it precisely backward.  The Constitution Act 1982 makes it clear that Canadians have the perfect freedom and a clear constitutional process to follow, whenever they do conclude that the British monarchy is indeed "a fashion we can discard."

It's a high threshold. A fundamental change to the office of the monarch would require the unanimous agreement of the federal government and all the provinces.  But that would be a substantial change in Canadian government and practice, so it should not be taken lightly or on a narrow base of support.

Still the constitution of Canada is clear. We can abolish the monarchy whenever we choose.  The monarch cannot abolish us at all.  A more succinct definition of popular sovereignty can hardly be imagined.

(I do acknowledge it was disconcerting to read of the Queen's illnesses over Christmas and New Year. Even "serious monarchists" should know the monarch has no exemption from mortality, but a world in which the Queen of England does not reign remains hard to imagine.  Long may she reign... in Britain.